Vermont Firearms Dealer To Lay Off 41 Because of Obama Executive Action

[miles]

I guess The Fraud lost his laser-like focus on jobs.
-------------------------------------------------------

A Vermont firearms dealer says the Obama administration is responsible for him having to lay off 41 of its workers in a “last minute” move that has even angered some of the state’s liberal politicians.

Century International Arms had a $30 million contract in place to import World War II era M1 Garand Rifles from the South Korean government. The U.S. State Department had given preliminary approval to the deal, and the State, Justice and Defense departments had cleared the transaction.

But an executive action announced last year by President Obama ultimately blocked the plan, according to the gun seller, despite pleas from Sen. Patrick Leahy and Gov. Peter Shumlin, both Democrats.

“All the normal approvals were in place to obtain the import permits for this sale from ATF,” the company wrote in a statement on Thursday.

It said it had invested “considerable funds” to line up approval and financing for the bid, which it had won from the South Korean government.

But the deal was nixed, the company said, because “the White House intervened at the last minute and blocked this importation.”

The administration’s rationale was what it called “two common-sense executive actions” announced last year which were designed “to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands.”

One of the actions put a ban on private entities re-importing military surplus firearms. Museums are one of the only exceptions to the ruling.

In a letter sent last month, Leahy and Shumlin pleaded with Obama to allow the transaction to go through.

They noted that the M1 Garand Rifle is used in the government-chartered Civilian Marksmanship Program. It was also given exemption in California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill.

They also claimed that blocking the deal would harm the company and its 200-plus employees.

And according to the company, that’s exactly what happened.

“As a consequence of this denial, there has been a reduction in work and Century has had to make the difficult decision to layoff 41 Vermont employees,” the company wrote.

“I think the Obama administration made a bad bad mistake,” said Leahy, according to WCAX.

“This is not like selling a bunch of assault weapons; these are basically collectors’ items,,” he said. “I’m a gun owner and these are not the things someone is going to use to hold up a bank, or shoot people, they are legitimate collector items.”

 

[Skiddles2014]

Aw, boo hoo.

The fat lazy jewboi found something else to whine about.

'they made me do it!'

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

What's the big deal that makes these guns worthy of Obama's attention? I'm not at all concerned about 41 jobs but I am curious what happened and why.

 

[phrodeau]

What, they can't buy domestic firearms? Fuck them.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Why didn't the Koch Brothers help save them with all their money?

 

[RobDownSouth]

If President Obama were to announce a cure for cancer, miles would be here the following day lamenting the loss of all the well-paying oncologist jobs that occurred under President Obama's administration.

:nods:

 

[Que]

What's the big deal that makes these guns worthy of Obama's attention? I'm not at all concerned about 41 jobs but I am curious what happened and why.

Either the administration does not understand guns at all, or the simply wanted to make a statement on moral grounds that they wanted no part in the chain of commerce from manufacturer to gun owner.

There are police departments that cut off their nose to spite their face. I think some of the policy makers are people of integrity making what they think is a principled stand. Whether it is guns found, confiscated in say a drug case, or gun buy-back programs...it makes little practical or economic sense.

In the gun buy-back programs it is sort of like cash-for clunkers. I actually am sort of in favor of raising the cost of gun ownership. Most of those are cheap Davis or Phoenix Arms pieces that sold for less new sometimes than the buyback amount.

I don't hold the moral high ground there though. A poor person probably is more likely than I to NEED to defend themselves and better a poorly functioning gun than none at all.

There is a woman I read about I think in a WSJ human interest piece that takes guns destined for melt-down and makes jewelry with the serial number part and donates some (maybe all) of the proceeds to anti-violence programs.

So...I think this is misguided, but probably (mostly)principled on the part of the administration.

In this case they aren't promoting their decision..I think they just said, nope, not gonna sell guns...even to collectors.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^What a wordy way of saying "Your guess is as good as mine, but I don't like gun control so this is bad GRRRR.

 

[Que]

^^^What a wordy way of saying "Your guess is as good as mine, but I don't like gun control so this is bad GRRRR.

cliff notes:

So...I think this is misguided, but probably (mostly)principled on the part of the administration

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well you can truncate "Your guess is as good as mine" down as short as you want but it still doesn't get me any closer to understanding what specifically happened here and why. Clearly Obama didn't get any major gun legislation through which makes this either a hoax, it wouldn't be the first, or something terribly specific that was meant to apply to something "scary". I'd like to know what precisely that was.

 

[Que]

Well you can truncate "Your guess is as good as mine" down as short as you want but it still doesn't get me any closer to understanding what specifically happened here and why. Clearly Obama didn't get any major gun legislation through which makes this either a hoax, it wouldn't be the first, or something terribly specific that was meant to apply to something "scary". I'd like to know what precisely that was.

It is no hoax.

The existence of the large quantity of late-production good quality, lightly used to new garands located in storage in South Korea has ben know about for a long time. Stores stateside of such inventory has depleted over the years.

The military has long made these available for civilian marksmanship training. Usually youth programs.

Here is why they are in South Korea, and in such good shape:

While U.S. forces were still engaged in the Korean War, the Department of Defense determined a need for additional production of the Garand, and two new contracts were awarded. During 1953–56, M1s were produced by International Harvester and Harrington & Richardson.[27] A final, very small lot of M1s was produced by Springfield Armory in early 1957, using finished components already on hand. Beretta also produced Garands using Winchester tooling.

If these were located in a supply closet at Fort Benning it would be no problem.

To re-patriate these American made WWII era rifles requires an import license that the administration has refused.

As far as scary, the M1, though a good, reliable rifle is far from scary.

It is the rifle that the often misapplied term "clip" comes from. It has no magazine. It has stripper clips that you carefully load in groups of five and stow in a pouch on your belt. When the gas-operated "semi-automatic" system loads the 5th round the clip goes flying, and you replace another 5 shots prepared "clip"

Think of the fire off five, duck reload sequence you probably find familiar from Saving Private Ryan sequences.

Despite the ready availability of inexpensive rifles with greater capacity, rate of fire, and in wide variety of more lethal calibers, they have chosen on apparently principled grounds to block this one.

Part of it is the rhetoric "weapons of war do not belong on our streets." but that seems silly. Smooth-bore, black-powder Kentucky Squirrel guns have been to war.

It isn't that I don't know...it is that I don't know which part of the story you are unfamiliar with.

I thought you were mostly asking, "why block it?" and I think genuinely in this case they are doing it on principle. Not every principled stand has to make objective sense.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You know what fuck it thanks.

Though you could have shortened to "this was labeled a weapon of war. Hense it is considered by some to be "scary". There are lots of better weapons you can buy at fucking Wal-Mart but the result of when people who don't know guns write gun legislation is shit like this.

Then add it it's a fucking shame the NRA cannot be trusted to help write gun laws because it is a fucking shame.

 

[Que]

Oh, and as to why those guns were superflouous and in such large quantity, that comes down to the Stoner Armalyte family that was what the US military replaced the Garands with. You might know those as black ugly rifles. Think AR-15 or the military one the M-16.

Lost (to me) in the middle of there somewhere was the M-14 which was technically the Garand's replacement and they made a bazillion of them, but I always thought that the soldiers trained with M14s and then took the lighter M-16 into the jungles. I have heard that marksmen prefer the more traditional M-14 when properly accurized. It is more like a traditional hunting rifle.

 

[Que]

You know what fuck it thanks.

Though you could have shortened to "this was labeled a weapon of war. Hense it is considered by some to be "scary". There are lots of better weapons you can buy at fucking Wal-Mart but the result of when people who don't know guns write gun legislation is shit like this.

Then add it it's a fucking shame the NRA cannot be trusted to help write gun laws because it is a fucking shame.

Obviously, I disagree that any additional laws needed writing since Capone's days...

But experts are ready to help with these sort of clarifications whether they happen to be NRA leadership, rank and file, or non-NRA.

There are a lot of retired military in congress that know this stuff, and they are either viewed as "in the pocket of the NRA" if a red-stater, or curiously silent if a blue stater.

I have no love for John Kerry, but I think he does know how a gas-powered, self loading rifle (or pistol) works and how that does not make it an "assault weapon."

A lot of people have visceral, and no-doubt sincere anti-gun feelings. It doesn't seem to inspire them to actually find out about various guns. To them all guns are bad, and obstructing any gun owner from getting any gun is a victory.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, and as to why those guns were superflouous and in such large quantity, that comes down to the Stoner Armalyte family that was what the US military replaced the Garands with. You might know those as black ugly rifles. Think AR-15 or the military one the M-16.

Lost (to me) in the middle of there somewhere was the M-14 which was technically the Garand's replacement and they made a bazillion of them, but I always thought that the soldiers trained with M14s and then took the lighter M-16 into the jungles. I have heard that marksmen prefer the more traditional M-14 when properly accurized. It is more like a traditional hunting rifle.

I'm a Marine, quite aware of what an M16 is, trained on one thank you. Quite a good shot I might add.

I didn't get to fire the M14 cus that was way before my time or really most peoples time. As you correctly state the M16A1 was use in Nam. They switched to the A2 mostly because if you a guy full auto he'll use full auto and you don't so much hit shot on full auto as you do waste a lot of ammo. But seeing how I'm a bit younger than 60 that's all history talk to me.

 

[Que]

I'm a Marine, quite aware of what an M16 is, trained on one thank you. Quite a good shot I might add.

I didn't get to fire the M14 cus that was way before my time or really most peoples time. As you correctly state the M16A1 was use in Nam. They switched to the A2 mostly because if you a guy full auto he'll use full auto and you don't so much hit shot on full auto as you do waste a lot of ammo. But seeing how I'm a bit younger than 60 that's all history talk to me.

Sorry...I forget about your service sometimes...

PS thanks.

And yes you are what early 30's? so the M14 was long phased out by then.

I don't actually know how you feel about gun ownership in general. I find vets and cops are usually on one end of the spectrum or the other.

My father was anti-gun and a vet.

My brother was pro-gun, and used to go shooting in the desert with his cop buddies that introduced him to the sport...til he became a cop...

When he was on the gang task force and later undercover as a skinhead (note the family resemblence- we have fine craniums) he was pretty anti-gun.

Now that he is internal affairs he sees things from the law-abiding armed-citizen's perspective again.

Like that thread I started, depends on where you are sitting.

I am not a fan of felons having guns...but that is sort of broad isnt it? What was the felony? What was their lifestyle then versus now. Ex-cons tend to live in bad neighborhoods...should they be prey? Like that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obviously, I disagree that any additional laws needed writing since Capone's days...

But experts are ready to help with these sort of clarifications whether they happen to be NRA leadership, rank and file, or non-NRA.

There are a lot of retired military in congress that know this stuff, and they are either viewed as "in the pocket of the NRA" if a red-stater, or curiously silent if a blue stater.

I have no love for John Kerry, but I think he does know how a gas-powered, self loading rifle (or pistol) works and how that does not make it an "assault weapon."

A lot of people have visceral, and no-doubt sincere anti-gun feelings. It doesn't seem to inspire them to actually find out about various guns. To them all guns are bad, and obstructing any gun owner from getting any gun is a victory.

I disagree that no new gun (for the purposes of this conversation when I say gun laws I mean projectile weapons and equipment not per se a gun) were needed. Getting rid of armor piercing rounds seems to have served us rather well.

First, I agree that a lot of people have a visceral feeling about guns. I'm not going to pretend for a second that I buy into 90% of the pro-gun arguments. That said I think you need people who've used them and been around them and frankly more than me (I was in the rear with the gear for the most part) who can accurately go around and say "This is too much gun." There are lots of things that at some point become too much if you aren't a trained professional, there's a reason why we have not just speed limits but actual laws on horsepower etc etc because there is a point at which if you are not Mario Andretti you've got too much fucking car.

Though honestly if crime is our primary issue the smartest thing we could do is ban all handguns, issue every American a rifle and remove most restrictions. You actually feel like carrying that thing around good for you. But everybody is gonna know you fucking have it and most people will stop simply cus it's troublesome.

Sorry...I forget about your service sometimes...

PS thanks.

And yes you are what early 30's? so the M14 was long phased out by then.

I don't actually know how you feel about gun ownership in general. I find vets and cops are usually on one end of the spectrum or the other.

My father was anti-gun and a vet.

My brother was pro-gun, and used to go shooting in the desert with his cop buddies that introduced him to the sport...til he became a cop...

When he was on the gang task force and later undercover as a skinhead (note the family resemblence- we have fine craniums) he was pretty anti-gun.

Now that he is internal affairs he sees things from the law-abiding armed-citizen's perspective again.

Like that thread I started, depends on where you are sitting.

I am not a fan of felons having guns...but that is sort of broad isnt it? What was the felony? What was their lifestyle then versus now. Ex-cons tend to live in bad neighborhoods...should they be prey? Like that.

I apologize for getting snippy, you didn't have a reason to know, I don't exactly go around bragging about it and you meant no disrespect. You were being educational and your welcome.

Yes early 30's.

My opinion on gun control kinda changes depending on the precise question. I do think there is a certain amount of gun that is simply more than we need walking around but ultimately those aren't used in crimes very often. I think the majority of people who are pro-guns really just want to be cowboys.

You'll fine my arguments on the subject more have to do with the people making them and the reasons. They are using to make them.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Boo fucking hoo.

 

[Ishmael]

Either the administration does not understand guns at all, or the simply wanted to make a statement on moral grounds that they wanted no part in the chain of commerce from manufacturer to gun owner.

There are police departments that cut off their nose to spite their face. I think some of the policy makers are people of integrity making what they think is a principled stand. Whether it is guns found, confiscated in say a drug case, or gun buy-back programs...it makes little practical or economic sense.

In the gun buy-back programs it is sort of like cash-for clunkers. I actually am sort of in favor of raising the cost of gun ownership. Most of those are cheap Davis or Phoenix Arms pieces that sold for less new sometimes than the buyback amount.

I don't hold the moral high ground there though. A poor person probably is more likely than I to NEED to defend themselves and better a poorly functioning gun than none at all.

There is a woman I read about I think in a WSJ human interest piece that takes guns destined for melt-down and makes jewelry with the serial number part and donates some (maybe all) of the proceeds to anti-violence programs.

So...I think this is misguided, but probably (mostly)principled on the part of the administration.

In this case they aren't promoting their decision..I think they just said, nope, not gonna sell guns...even to collectors.

Ignoring the other points for now, I strongly disagree with you here. If you look at crime and where it takes place by far the larger number of victims live in the poorest parts of any city. By raising the cost of purchase/ownership you are effectively denying the right of self defense to the very people that need to exercise that right the most. In a way it could be argued as a form of backdoor racism.

Ishmael

 

[Skiddles2014]

Raising gun prices is racist!

DERP

 

[Que]

If President Obama were to announce a cure for cancer, miles would be here the following day lamenting the loss of all the well-paying oncologist jobs that occurred under President Obama's administration.

:nods:

This analogy would make sense if denying the importation of 60 year old American-made antique 5-shot rifles cured, what? Violence in America? Where hammers and other "weapon at hand" blunt objects exceed rifles in cause of death?

So is this a brilliant decision, analogous to curing cancer?

::nods- no::

 

[Que]

Ignoring the other points for now, I strongly disagree with you here. If you look at crime and where it takes place by far the larger number of victims live in the poorest parts of any city. By raising the cost of purchase/ownership you are effectively denying the right of self defense to the very people that need to exercise that right the most. In a way it could be argued as a form of backdoor racism.

Ishmael

Agreed...I also said:

I don't hold the moral high ground there though. A poor person probably is more likely than I to NEED to defend themselves and better a poorly functioning gun than none at all.

Gun buy back programs ARE targeted primarily to minority neighborhoods. The hope is that someone in the household knows where a gun is tucked away and will sell it for a small amount of cash.

At a minimum if they were dealing in good faith they would have appraisers on site and offer the greater of appraised value or the minimum offered.

If they were concerned about crime in those communities, why not take the (few) quality firearms that they get in seizure or (even less likely) buy-backs, teach self defense classes in those areas and offer the guns free or at reduced prices to those that complete the course. Arm granny and The Little Sisters of Charity, I say.

 

[about_average]

What's the big deal that makes these guns worthy of Obama's attention? I'm not at all concerned about 41 jobs but I am curious what happened and why.

Nothing specifically about them are a big deal. They are military surplus and so fall under the ban.
As you probably know, they hold fewer rounds, and are harder to reload (stripper clips sorta suck), than many perfectly legal to buy guns.
It would be simple to make an exception for M1's.

I'd love to have an M1, rifle or carbine, but prices are going up all the time. Gone are the days like when I was a kid and the local hardware store had a table full of them for $5 or $10 each. One time I was looking at them and a guy who served in WWII was standing there and said something to the effect, "The only reason I'd buy one of these would be to stick in the ground in my back yard and piss on it every day."

I'm glad I bought my Mosin Nagant years ago, and inherited my dad's Krag 30-40.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What's the big deal that makes these guns worthy of Obama's attention? I'm not at all concerned about 41 jobs but I am curious what happened and why.

He simply glommed onto the fact that they were military assault rifles...

What, they can't buy domestic firearms? Fuck them.

Where the hell do you think they originally came from?